Administration of annual oral high-dose vitamin D to community-dwelling older women in autumn and winter months increases risk of falls and fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: 1. Sanders KM, 2. Stuart AL, 3. Williamson EJ, 4. et al . Annual high-dose oral vitamin D and falls and fractures in older women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010;303:1815–22. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] At latitudes above 35°N, where vitamin D insufficiency is common, winter sunlight does not contain sufficient ultraviolet B for endogenous vitamin D production, necessitating supplementation. Insufficient levels of vitamin D increase risks for falling and fracture.1 Randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation for preventing falls and fractures have been unequivocal, complicated by different doses, dosing regimens, delivery methods, vitamin D types and populations. Sanders and colleagues compared the rates of falls and fractures in 2256 community-dwelling women residing in southern Victoria, Australia (38°S latitude), randomly assigned to receive either an annual 500 000 IU oral dose of vitamin D3 or identical placebo each fall or winter. Women at high risk for fracture were entered into this single-centre, double-blinded trial and were followed for 3–5 years. Women were excluded if they were unable to provide consent or information regarding falls or fractures, resided in a high-level care facility, had high serum calcium (albumin-corrected >2.65 mmol/l) or creatinine (>150 µmol/l) or were currently taking ≥400 IU vitamin D per day, calcitriol or antifracture therapy. Treatment allocation was by an independent statistician. Baseline questionnaires detailed participants' ages, calcium intakes … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DSanders%26rft.auinit1%253DK.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D303%26rft.issue%253D18%26rft.spage%253D1815%26rft.epage%253D1822%26rft.atitle%253DAnnual%2BHigh-Dose%2BOral%2BVitamin%2BD%2Band%2BFalls%2Band%2BFractures%2Bin%2BOlder%2BWomen%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.2010.594%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F20460620%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2010.594&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=20460620&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F15%2F6%2F175.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000277513900022&link_type=ISI
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".